Agenda - 03-01-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• • Report on Efland Estates, Section II -2- December 12, 1980 All vectors listed on the chart (flies, pets, children, etc.) are exposed to the contaminated environment of the area. Mosquitoes would be of concern due to viral encephalitis and the possibility of a resurgence of malaria. The department has not detected evidence of high rates of illness. However, the Department's position is that the single factor which prevents major morbidity . problems is the protected public water supply. Contamination of the water sup- ply could easily occur in a variety of ways such as freezing and cracking of lines, plumbing cross connections, etc. Such an occurrence would have severe effects. At the May 15, 1980, Board of Health meeting, the staff presented extensive evidence of the problem in Efland Estates and the best solution, which would be a community waste disposal system. The Board requested the Director to meet with the County Manager and request that Mebane be asked to explore extension elf•y„ sewer to this area, as one possible solution. The Director has since met with .the Manager. As the nearest sewer line is over five miles away, the Director has concluded this solution is not practical. On June 20, 1980, the Director, et al, was sued by the present owners of the 98 undeveloped lots in the subdivision to either reimburse them what they paid for the lots or validate the 1972 percolation tests on the lots, which would allow them to construct homes. The Director refused to reconsider the decision of the environmental staff (on 14 of the remaining 18 lots that the staff has soil tested) that all lots are unsuitable for on-site individual ground absorp- tion septic disposal systems, except lots 33 and 32 which would be provisionally . suitable if combined into a single lot. Based on extensive soil testing and consultant analysis of the area, the Department's position is that further de- velopment of the area would lead to an increase In the health hazard to residents. The request to honor the 1972 percolation tests can not be honored for multiple reasons. Important among those reasons is that the percolation test.. was deemed an extremely unreliable indicator and test and discontinued as a primary test on July 1, 1977, by change in the State regulations. Orange County adopted the new State regulations and there exists no basis to honor the 1972 perk tests. Secondly, of the 26 developed lots, 23 of these lots were only able to pass the perk test on a second try when the hole was dug to a depth of 48 inches This procedure was not in accord with State regulations but was acceptable by the District Health Department regulations of that era. This put the perk test into saprolite soil which is unacceptable soil for ground absorption septic systems. (Until July 1, 1977, Orange County was part of a five county health district. On that date Orange County formed its own department.) Under regulations adopted July 1, 1977, the subdivision would not have been constructed. However, it does exist and the Department considers a serious health hazard to exist in this sub- division and will continue to explore solutions to abate the problem. During the week of December 15, the Health Director will send a letter to the 22 homeowners with failing systems notifying them that their system consti- tutes a health hazard. Secondly, they will be directed to take certain procedures to reduce the hazard. During mid-January, 1981, the Health Director will have trained medical personnel conduct a health status survey to determine any correla- tion between the environmental pollution and health problems. This is seen as a cautionary measure and not expected to document illness due to the protected Watl?r c I. r'.la.